Kelly v. Figueiredo’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

138

cited by 138 later decisions

states following

February 2023

most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 15 district · 117 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 138 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably Buell Industries, Inc. v. Greater New York Mutual Insurance (2002), Sassone v. Lepore (1993)

3 federal appellate · 15 district · 117 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Hammer v. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co. · Blancato v. Feldspar Corp. · American Universal Insurance v. DelGreco · Michaud v. Wawruck · Kowal v. Hofher

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 138 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“must . . . construe the complaint in the manner most favorable to sustaining its legal sufficiency.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Grimalda v. Leonard, No. 31 99 13 (Dec. 12, 1997) · Quinn v. Blau, No. Cv96 32 56 91 S (Dec. 12, 1997)
“Calvert argues, on the other hand, that the exclusion clause applies to all assaults and batteries. We agree with Calvert's interpretation of the exclusion clause. Deciding the scope of the exclusion clause "involves a determination of what coverage the insured expected to receive and what coverage the insurer expected to provide as disclosed by the language of the policy." . . . The words of the policy must be accorded their natural and ordinary meaning. "[C]ourts cannot indulge in a forced construction ignoring provisions or so distorting them as to accord a meaning other than that evidently intended by the parties." (Internal citations and quotation marks omitted.).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Salza v. Cellar, No. Cv00 37 56 00 S (May 20, 2002) · Penn-America Insurance Co. v. Ltj Corp., No. Cv 95-0468305 S (Jul. 23, 1996)
“The legislature enacted § 30-102 , the Dram Shop Act, in 1933, thereby creating a cause of action against liquor sellers for victims injured by intoxicated persons to whom the liquor sellers have served alcohol. The common law did not allow such a cause of action because the intoxicated person's consumption of alcohol was held to constitute a break in the causal chain between the liquor seller and the victim . . . In enacting § 30-102 and abrogating the common law bar to a cause of action, the legislature thus allowed CT Page 10051 some measure of recovery to victims of acts of intoxicated persons.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 10047 - Rosenthal v. Amf Bowling Center, No. Cv98 035 53 49 S (Jul. 16, 1999) · 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 11882 - Aviles v. Fox, No. Cv97 158427 S (Nov. 20, 1997)

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.